A funny thing is about to happen to Barack Obama. No matter how much he thinks he's ready for it, he isn't. No matter how many people warn him, he'll be surprised. And hurt. And angry.
His friends in the press are about to turn on him.
They may not even know it yet, but they will.
They can't help themselves. They've been caught fawning, made fun of for favoritism, become the subject of their own scrutiny.
Which means they won't be able to resist.
There's an old parable about a scorpion that asks a frog to carry him across the lake. The frog is afraid of being stung. The scorpion assures him not to worry, that if he stings the frog, they'll both drown. Of course, halfway across, that's exactly what he does. "But why?" the frog asks, as both face death. The scorpion's answer: I can't help it. It's my nature.
It's the press's nature to turn on those they most adore. The bigger the buildup, the bigger the letdown. Watch the balloon fill with air. Watch them start pricking holes. Watch the balloon lose air. Wait to see if there's still a balloon at all in the end.
Mark my words. It's about to begin.
This is not, as conservatives like to believe, an ideological thing. The press may be liberal, in the sense that most of them vote that way and are almost certainly voting for Obama. But they are simultaneously drawn to and repulsed by their own desire for attention, their own importance, their role as makers, cheerleaders and faithless friends.
The press had plenty of reason to feel burnt by the Clintons, having fallen for him once, big time, only to find themselves, in their book, manipulated and misled.
That is not, I should add, how the Clintons saw it. They saw it as the press turning on them, which was also true. That is no doubt how Barack Obama will also see it, and he will, to a certain extent, be right.
Here it comes: Is Barack pro-Israel enough? Is he tough enough? Is he substantive enough? What about his past? What about those votes in the Illinois Senate? What exactly has he accomplished?
And, most important of all, has he been getting a free ride?
It's not that these questions shouldn't be asked. They should. But they should be asked throughout the process, not, as is about to happen, in an avalanche, a storm of scrutiny, a blizzard of second-guessing from the very gushers who were, only a few short weeks ago, so busy guzzling Kool-Aid that they didn't even look to see what it was made of.
The barrage may not come in time to change the outcome of the Democratic contests next week, or of the nomination fight. In this upside-down world, it would be fitting were the intense scrutiny that should mark the hardest fought primary contest in decades to begin only after it was effectively over. Stranger things have happened. I haven't counted Hillary out yet. Too many have made that mistake already in this season to jump that gun.
But one thing I do know after nearly 30 years in politics: The press (and I guess that is my crowd now, though I will probably always feel more comfortable with a staff pin than a press dog tag) can be many things to a candidate. They can be pals, fans, drinking buddies, confidantes and cronies. But friends? True, loyal friends? Never.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Kingston Freeman, February29, 2008. Better than chocolates and flowers. Thank you for providing valuable insights into the feelings of those of us who have had heart transplants. I belong to an organization called "Mended Hearts, Inc." which is affiliated with the American Heart Association. Our goal to to provide information and "Listeners" to those who are about to undergo or have undergone heart surgery. We are a nationwide organization. Please advise you friend to contact the closest Chapter of Mended Hearts where she will be able to speak to others who have traveled the same road before her. I have experianced several bouts of rejection and I can say with great happiness that I am still here to talk about it. If you wish, you may give her my email address and I will be most happy to discuss her concerns and hopefully help her through what is often a difficult time. I had my heart transplant at Columbia Presbyterian in July of 2000, and am enjoying every day of my new life.
Joseph F. Czaplicki
Vice President, Mended Hearts, Chapter #5, Poughkeepsie, New York
Comment: #1
Posted by: Joseph F. Czaplicki
Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:41 PM
Susan, You may be right, but Barack can turn to Ronald Regan for a guide. You probably remember that the press was merciless during his presidency. But he came to called the Teflon President, thanks to his sense of humor that never failed to put the press in their place.
I believe you are right Susan. I find it a real shame that the press controls our life. I see you on Fox News once in awhile and, though I don't agree with your politics, I respect your opnion. I think you are absolutely right on this one.
Comment: #3
Posted by: June Lewis
Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:06 PM
Susan, excellent article. Although I disagree with Obama's and Hillary's positions on many matters, the primary would have been much more informative, if the press had not 'fallen in love' with Obama.
As Hillary says about herself, she is a known commodity. Obama is not. The press should have been asking the tough questions throughout this campaign process to know which of these two front-runners really should be the candidate of the Democratic Party.
For the little info we do know, his views are too far left and his 'plan' for Iraq is simply misguided by his pandering to the crowd. I hope the press 'turns' soon. We need the facts - not glorious speeches. Let the infatuation end soon!
Comment: #4
Posted by: Karen
Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:04 AM
Susan, I agree with the others...
Good Article!
Heard your radio interview with Hannity the other day, in which you said Hillary didn't have anything to do with the Irish/Northern Ireland peace settlement.
However, this very morning in an interview in Texas, she once again made that claim!
How can one prove she isn't telling the truth?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Carol N
Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:24 PM
Although I disagree with you on most things politically, I really respect you and find myself very attracted to you! Most of my friends would slap me for that remark!!! Anyway, I think you are correct with you on this. As a retired combat veteran, i wish you would go visit the tropps in Iraq and Afghanistan to see for yourself what is happening over there in theater. I know the troops would appreciate you and would give you the Gods honest truth. Maybe we can show you the true light concerning the war! They woud love to see your smiling face.
Cheers,
Comment: #7
Posted by: Jay
Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:12 PM
I always felt Obama's appeal was his race. His education, appearance, etc. was secondary. On a recent McLaughlin Group the subject of "white guilt" was discussed. Whites feel it's time for a black President and it's Obama's turn.
Both voters and press were falling all over themselves to sing Obama's praises. It was impossible for Hillary to attack Obama in the same way she would a white male. I don't think Obama's unique position failed to amuse him.
Even the late night shows and the Today show favored Obama. The Today Show announced a piece that was to show a little known side of the candidates. I expected tastes in food, hobbies, books.
Instead, Hillary was shown wearing several unflattering outfits; but Obama was show as an all around guy--at a supermarket, cuddling at home with Michelle. He was asked the boxer or briefs question. He said "I don't answer humiliating questions like that--but be assured, in whatever, I look hot. Can you imagine Hillary answering a similar question in that manner? Arrogant? Stiff?
I agree that the press will do an about-face, For the sake of new material, scandals, variety, etc. But most of all because the press has already worshiped at the altar of racial diversity and paid it's tithes.
Comment: #8
Posted by: barbara m. czaczynski
Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:35 PM
Re: Love/Hate & the 4th Estate:
Susan, your prediction of the press' turning seems too much like predicting rain on a sunny day in Seattle (not a cloud in the sky). Coming after your "G"Word column, and your apparent affinity with/for the Clintons, I'd say your prognostication seems rather suggestive and a little wishful. Unfortunately for the Clintons, your forecast ("prophecy" may be a better fit), is likely to come after Hillary is out of the race.
The press' turn on Hillary came AFTER the people voted against her. The Clintons have simply lost their position of "electable liberal de jour" to a much more attractive candidate. BTW, even as we watch Ohio and Texas, I get the feeling that the more PEOPLE (not the press) see and hear Hillary, the more they VOTE for her alternative.
I see you often on various shows and I tend to have a different point of view. As a black conservative, I ask myself when will my group speak out on Mr. Feel Good. I don't know if the press will turn, but I am hoping. Being from Illinois, I am too familar with Mr. Obama's record. It is bad and so far, far, left. He continues to say that he has been against the war, since the start. This is easy for him to say. He was not in the U.S. Senate when we were hit in 2001. Does he really think that he would not have voted the way so many dems did back then? Considering his record in the the senate to date, that would be hard to believe. It is so easy driving in the back seat. Clinton should have been hammering him for a long time. And some bi-partisan record he has, right? Your readers need to research his home sale deal in Hyde Park, IL. Does that deal show his wisdom? He states that he did nothing wrong, but made a mistake in getting involved with Resko. If he did nothing wrong, what mistake did he make? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Mark Daniels
Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:31 PM
I see you often on various shows and I tend to have a different point of view. As a black conservative, I ask myself when will my group speak out on Mr. Feel Good. I don't know if the press will turn, but I am hoping. Being from Illinois, I am too familar with Mr. Obama's record. It is bad and so far, far, left. He continues to say that he has been against the war, since the start. This is easy for him to say. He was not in the U.S. Senate when we were hit in 2001. Does he really think that he would not have voted the way so many dems did back then? Considering his record in the the senate to date, that would be hard to believe. It is so easy driving in the back seat. Clinton should have been hammering him for a long time. And some bi-partisan record he has, right? Your readers need to research his home sale deal in Hyde Park, IL. Does that deal show his wisdom? He states that he did nothing wrong, but made a mistake in getting involved with Resko. If he did nothing wrong, what mistake did he make? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Mark Daniels
Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:32 PM